IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

James Mobley, :

 Plaintiff, :

 v. : Case No. 2:11-cv-186

Director Gary C. Mohr, : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

 Magistrate Judge Kemp

 Defendant. :

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff, James Mobley, a state prisoner confined at the

Madison Correctional Institution, has filed a civil complaint and

has paid the full filing fee. Notwithstanding the payment of the

fee, the Court is required by statute (28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2),

§1915A) to screen the complaint before service of process occurs

to determine if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted, or states a claim against

a person who is immune from suit. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997) (“A district court is required

to screen all civil cases brought by prisoners, regardless of

whether the inmate paid the full filing fee, is a pauper, is pro

se, or is represented by counsel as the statute does not

differentiate between various civil actions brought by

prisoners”). For the following reasons, the Court recommends

that the case be dismissed.

I.

Mr. Mobley’s complaint consists of a form complaint plus

approximately fifty pages of attachments. The only defendant who

is listed by name is Gary Mohr, the Director of the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Other defendants

are listed as “Staff under the direct supervision of the director

Case: 2:11-cv-00186-ALM-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/16/11 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-2-

Gary C. Mohr of the State of Ohio D.R. & C. (L.O.C.I., MaCI).” 

The form complaint does not identify any specific cause of

action. Rather, it requests the Court “to view all documents and

determine if of [sic] the documents shows any violation ....” 

The documents consist mostly of grievances which Mr. Mobley filed

about his treatment while in isolation, including a number of

times when he was unable to turn off the lights in his cell. 

They also include one appeal of a Rules Infraction Board

conviction to Director Mohr, who affirmed the conviction. It

appears that the conviction was for violations of two prison

rules, although the paperwork attached to the complaint does not

state the substance either of those rules or what Mr. Mobley

allegedly did to violate them. Mr. Mobley’s exhibits show that

the conviction was upheld both by the warden of Mr. Mobley’s

institution and by Director Mohr. 

II.

The Court must now determine if this complaint states any

claims upon which relief can be granted. The standard for making

this determination is as follows.

A complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted if the complaint contains

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 

Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally in favor of the

pro se party. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). 

However, the Court must scrutinize all complaints, whether as

part of an initial screening or in the context of a motion to

dismiss filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), to determine which

allegations are factual and which are simply recitations of legal

conclusions unsupported by facts, and it need not construe mere

legal conclusions as supporting a legal claim if there are no

facts from which relief on that claim would be plausibly

Case: 2:11-cv-00186-ALM-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/16/11 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-3-

available. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009).

Here, the only defendant named in the complaint is Director

Mohr, and the only action attributed to him is the affirmance of

an R.I.B. conviction. The complaint does not identify the

conduct which led to the conviction, nor does it state what

constitutional rights Mr. Mobley believes to have been violated

by his conviction. It also fails to state what punishment he

received.

Clearly, this complaint does not state a claim against

Director Mohr concerning the RIB appeal upon which relief could

be granted. The law is clear that a defendant can be held liable

under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violating an inmate’s due process

rights in connection with prison discipline only if that

discipline imposes an “atypical and significant hardship” on that

prisoner in relation to the “ordinary incidents of prison life.” 

See Thomas v. Bush, 187 F.3d 638, *2 (6th Cir. June 14,

1999)(unpublished), quoting Sandin V. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484

(1995). Mr. Mobley’s complaint contains no allegations from

which the Court could conclude that whatever punishment he

received from the RIB conviction about which he complains was the

type of hardship which has due process implications, and, under

the reasoning in Thomas, which the Court finds persuasive, the

absence of these allegations prevents the complaint from stating

a valid due process claim. In other words, the complaint simply

lacks enough facts to make it plausible that Mr. Mobley could

recover against Director Mohr on a due process theory, or, for

that matter, any other constitutional theory as it relates to the

RIB conviction. 

Second, the Court declines Mr. Mobley’s invitation to sift

through his informal complaints and formal grievances in an

effort to locate a constitutional claim. Although federal

pleadings standards are not particularly rigid, they do require,

Case: 2:11-cv-00186-ALM-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/16/11 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-4-

at a minimum, a “short and plain statement of the claim showing

the pleader is entitled to relief ....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). 

Where a complaint cites to no particular law and recites no

particular facts which allegedly constitute a cause of action,

but instead invites the Court to glean those facts from a

collection of documents, the Court is within its rights to

dismiss the complaint. See, e.g., Mays v. Sundquist, 103 F.3d

130, *1 (6th Cir. 1996)(unreported)(court properly dismissed

complaint which “asked the federal courts to review all

amendments to the state’s sentencing laws which were passed

between 1970 and 1995" because such a complaint is too vague”). 

Even if the Court were to find some violation hidden among the

various attachments to Mr. Mobley’s complaint, the named

defendant, Director Mohr, could not be held liable for any

claimed constitutional deprivation because it does not appear

that he was directly involved in any of the matters addressed in

those grievances. Under §1983, absent direct personal

involvement in an alleged constitutional deprivation, a state

official cannot be held liable. Monell v. Department of Social

Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416,

421 (6th Cir. 1984). 

III.

For all of the reasons stated above, it is recommended that

this action be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) and 1915A

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

IV.

 PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

 If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file

and serve on all parties written objections to those specific

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,

together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A judge

Case: 2:11-cv-00186-ALM-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/16/11 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-5-

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,

may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object

to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the

right to have the district judge review the Report and

Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the

right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the

Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:11-cv-00186-ALM-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/16/11 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>